> On 10 Mar 2016, at 8:25 PM, Jimmy Wales <jimmywa...@wikia-inc.com> wrote:
> On 3/10/16 8:18 AM, Benjamin Lees wrote:
>> I was glad when I saw Jimbo indicate he was reaching out to James. At
>> the risk of sounding hopelessly naive, maybe Jimbo should send James
>> another email, this time extending a clearer olive branch. If we're
>> past the point of no return on that, then so be it, but I would be
>> happy to know that after three months of talking about and at each
>> other, you guys _sincerely_ tried talking to each other.
> I agree completely. My email, which seems so horrifying to a few
> people, was meant exactly as that. The truth is, I am genuinely
> bewildered and finding it very hard to understand why James says things
> that the entire rest of the board find contrary to fact.
Christ Jimmy, you sincerely told him he was either a liar, emotionally stunted,
or psychologically damaged! You think *that* is extending an olive branch?!?
> There is nothing horrible about encouraging him to think about whether
> emotion has blinded him. When so many other people who know the facts
> are telling you that you have it wrong, it's a good idea to pause and
Then it’s a good idea to stick to, you know, the facts. Did you really
think that telling James that one option is he is a liar would be
conducive to reflections?
> And yes, it would have been more charitable and kind to include other
> options in that email. I wrote it as an opening to a dialogue, not as a
> formal statement of position to be analyzed in public. I invite people
> to think whether Pete's publishing of it was done in the interests of
> healing and harmony, rather than to further inflame and create drama.
“Charitable and kind”? What options might these have been?
If that email was the opening to a dialogue, then you might want to consider
your own level of EQ!
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
New messages to: Wikimediaemail@example.com